User talk:Vuo

In your recent changes to the Karelian language article, you've replicated a lot of the points one of my elderly relatives used to make in her frequent jokes about the (slow) Savolax people. She had spent her childhood somewhere at the western Ladoga shore, in some smallish village whose name I've forgotten. The article states that it is not about what Finns consider as a Karelian dialect, but with your recent changes I curiously wonder if this still holds true. --Johan Magnus 16:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Karelian language is a dialect continuum, and it's influenced by the Finland Finnish dialects including the Savo dialect.

Could you please comment your changes here? Thank you!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edit to the English Language page, I'm not sure if that's right. Listening to myself, I definitely labialize /ʃ/ to [ʃʷ] before rounded vowels, but before unrounded vowels, it's just [ʃ]. I don't know about speakers of other dialects of English of course, but I suspect that, say, [ʃʷi:n] for "sheen" would sound very odd to them. Just my two cents. On the other hand, apparently I *do* labialize them, just more so before rounded vowels. I'll be damned. Take care. --Whimemsz 23:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vuo,

Thanks for your clarifications of length in Estonian. I knew something was off with the old wording, but am not familiar with Fennic languages myself. kwami 18:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

I probably should feel offended about your blanking of Talk:Sauli Niinistö. Are you a Niinistö voter yourself? =) JIP | Talk 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is simply irrelevant with respect to the article and tantamount to vandalism. See [1] --Vuo 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was about Sauli Niinistö. It was not about the Wikipedia article about Sauli Niinistö. I was under the impression that Wikipedia allowed talk about the subjects of the articles, not only about the articles themselves. At least, I have seen plenty of precedent for that. JIP | Talk 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, especially if it's personal attacks. --Vuo 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inquire if your comment regarding the autonomy of Åland is the result of ignorance or contempt for the Åland Islands. It amazes me that a Finn, who by all standards should have at least basic knowledge about the autonomy of Åland, expresses such misinformed views. --Nappilainen 14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "autonomy" usually means that everything but foreign policy and the protection of the military is handled by the local government, and that the nation is a federation. None of these apply; the entire territory of Finland is governed by the Finnish law, as set in the national parliament. --Vuo 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the source for that definition. I don't see why autonomy should imply that the nation is a federation. And I would like to point this out: Åland is _not_ governed solely by Finnish law, many of the laws that govern Åland are set by Lagtinget. You may want to read Självstyrelselagen before you spread any further erroneous statements, the link is on the Finland-talk page. The autonomy of Åland has been the subject of academic study since it was established and let me stress this: no serious scholar challenges the fact that Åland _is_ an autonomy. --Nappilainen 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] – If '1' is so problematic, then, why is it used normally in all the other numbers (10, 11, etc)? If you have some kind of authoritative source for your information, could you mention it in the discussion? --Jonik 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your revisions to MTBE make no sense. Have you read the arthur d little study? it is totally superficial as well as erroneous. what is the length of your experince with MTBE? have you ever worked on an MTBE cleanup? i have worked in the field of groundwater contamination from leaking fuel tanks for over 30 years and know this subject. MTBE is a known carcinogen and of a concern at very low concentrations. you have reverted this article so that it is essentially a pawn of the MTBE industry. i will not let the article stand with the bias you have instilled. but i will give you the courtesy of awaiting your response and invite any others knowledgable in this matter to comment. let us be scientific and correct in what we impart here.Anlace 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content itself is not really the problem. The problem is that you want to create a political pamphlet or something. An encyclopedia is not a place for comments such a As with most carcinogens, it is difficult to determine long term effects of exposure. Researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingesting MTBE. So, it's not poisonous, but it's poisonous? The only part of that is really needed in the article is: Researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingesting MTBE. This is the "state of the art", and it needs to be mentioned. Trying to sound scary is not a good practice. Furthermore, I added content that has sources; true, it's just petrol industry, but you have nothing to offer in return. + On the content, reply to Talk:MTBE. --Vuo 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response...here are the issues 1. the part you quote in italics was not my contribution and i agree its almost meaningless 2. MTBE is a known carcinogen 3. as with many carcinogens it is difficult to have long term data to show effects. how many decades did we wait before acting on smoking as a danger after someone knew it to be carcinogenic?? 4. you still havent told me whether you read the a d little article 5. you still havent said how many MTBE cleanups you have worked on. 6. i agree this is no place for a political statement and will heed that in any further revisions. i am not a political person, but rather a scientist. 7. im not trying to sound scary, but MTBE is an enormous problem. in the usa alone the cleanup costs already mandated will be staggering 8. i will give you more references to this matter on my next edit 9. above all i appreciate this discourse, even though we seem to disagree; im not sure how much we will disagree once we share all the relevant facts sincerely Anlace 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vuo: I do not see your point in changing the fresh 2006 Kemira Growhow data that was there into some old figures from 2004? The fact that Kemira Growhow web site has some outdated information is not good reason to have outdated information here, right?

Right. Although one should denote the money in euros, the operating currency, not dollars. --Vuo 19:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re your edit at [[3]]

You say that the cases modify the verb but not the noun. That is surely illogical! They must be modifying the noun. Am I not right in thinking that the location of the word ikkunassa is critical? If the phrase said "voinko sovittaa noita ikkunassa housuja" the problem is solved because ikkunassa is then used as an adjective to housuja because adjectives always precede their nouns. When coming after housuja as in "voinko sovittaa noita housuja ikkunassa" it means that ikkunassa must be being used adverbally, this describing where the fitting is taking place. As the comment on the discussion page says, even the English construction is bad because it is ambiguous. Although this is an interesting thread it is perhaps not best placed under the heading of locative cases.

I have great respect your knowledge of Finnish and grammar so have not changed your edit, but you may wish to think about whether you want to change it yourself. Regards Tom 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to, not modifies. I can say that "voinko sovittaa noita ikkunassa housuja" is ungrammatical, as a native Finnish speaker. It is the intent to provide an example where it would be ambiguous where the locative refers to (sovittaa, or housuja), and demonstrate that it points to the verb (sovittaa ikkunassa), not the noun (housuja ikkunassa). --Vuo 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm picking on you again!

In the article on illative (Finnish noun cases) you put this as the introduction...

The ending is *-hən, where ə indicates the preceding vowel, and 'h' elides should the result be a simple long vowel. (This elision does not occur in some dialects, such as in Pohjanmaa.) The ending is added to the strong vowel stem. The third of the local cases with the basic meaning "into"

I honestly do not think that most Finns would regard there as being an elided h in most forms of the illative. It seems to me that adding the 'h' is a simple way of overcoming the problem of extending an already long vowel. This is how Finnish is taught to us learning the language by professional teachers, and it seems perfectly logical. The Pohjanmaa dialect I agree is interesting and, although you have not claimed it, it may, for all I know, have some historical significance too. BUT, I'm not sure that the exception makes the rule!

Would you re-consider this? I am trying to encourage the use of WIKIs for learning the language. Although I am aiming to create this away from the Wikipedia, the Wikipedia is a good reference point and we may update it if we think it necessary. It is nice to have them in step with each other, but *-hən and a usually elided 'h' is going to be a hard sell to my Finnish Grammar teacher. Can you re-consider it?

(PS Thanks for the reply re pants in the window!) Tom 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 22:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the only case in Finnish, where consonant elision takes place; the partitive case -ta → -a is the most widespread. However, it is morphologically correct, no matter how funny it sounds, to leave the consonant in place. That is, leipähän is correct, although it sounds old-fashioned. But, kuu → *kuun (pro kuuhun) is NOT correct, and will change meanings. So, err on the side of caution.

Furthermore, long vowel-producing processes are very much alive in spoken Finnish, so it's not unfamiliar to a Finnish speaker to create the long vowel. In fact, there's even dispute on the professor level if non-initial non-simple vowels are long vowels/diphthongs or sequences of vowels. (So, leipään is syllabicated either /lei.pä:n/ or /lei.pä.än/.) And, this question about *-hən/-ən is a theory, and we want the simplest theory that is accurate: if we take *-ən as the "basic" form, this makes all words not ending in a short vowel exceptions to the general rule, adding unnecessary complexity. --Vuo 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I accept that it works and is understood, but I still think it is wrong, because in the standard language, the elision is standard and so we need to state the rules for the elision. The standard teaching is that the form is

1. -Vn (where V is the last vowel on the genetive singular stem).

when the word is more that 2 syllables long.

-Vn is the most common notation that I have seen in various grammar books (e.g. Fred Karlsson's "Finnish. An Essential Grammar", Leila White's "Suomen kielioppia ulkomaalaisille" and Markukka Kenttälä's Kieli käytöön). )

Examples

Talo > Talon > Taloon

Käsi > Käden > Käteen (showing s-t-d gradation changes)

Kankea > Kankean > Kankeaan

2. -seen on the genetive stem

where the genetive stem ends in a long vowel

Examples

huone > Huoneen > Huoneeseen

Lontoo > Lontoon > Lontooseen

3. -hVn

where the word is only 1 syllable long and ends in a vowel

Examples

kuu > Kuun > Kuuhun

tie > tien > tiehen

I think this is still the better explanation as it always gives the right answer in Standard Finnish. Tom 13:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please take a look at Talk:Palatalization.

Regards, Amir E. Aharoni 10:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments on the talk page.

That was just a general example of what quality vs. quantity means, so I wrote "/k/ with /g/" as an example of change in quality of voicing, because /k/ vs. /v/ would represent only Finnish. It wasn't meant to be from any specific language. If you want a specific language, /k/ vs /g/ could pass for Karelian. --Ryan 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, /k/ to /g/ doesn't really stress the point enough: the consonant can be replaced, not just simply modified w.r.t. voicing and such. Citing Pohjanmaa Finnish vesi, veren, veteen. --Vuo 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still curious on your source for the following:

There are also traces of earlier gradation patterns, predating the current system. For example, the noun case partitive (a very common case, usage about 15% of all instances) and the verb form I infinitive share the ending -ta/-tä. However, more often than not, this is gradated to -a/-ä. For example, the noun jousi has the partitive jousta with the original -ta, but the noun kylä has the partitive kylää, from *kylätä. With verbs, assimilation may occur, e.g. tulla ← *tul+ta. The t-deletion occurs whenever a simple long vowel results in standard Finnish. The Karelian dialect, in particular, sometimes does not delete the intervocalic 't'.

Not that I don't believe it, of course, as it seems to be a plausible explaination. I haven't found it in Hakulinen's book, though I may not have searched deeply enough. --Ryan 20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to say "somewhere on the net" now, but when I have time, I could find an actual book on this. But, I'm sure that this is an important part of a "standard description" of consonant gradation. --Vuo 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are far better examples of suffixal gradation than something like this that can hardly be said to be an alternation anymore. Similar to the menkää vs. mene? thing you cited in the Finnish article; since the historical reconstruction of the singular imperative would have been something like menek this would have not been an alternation back in the day. The change in my mind is a result of historical lenition, not some lenition process; the amount of final consonants became more restrictive across the language anyway. On the other hand I haven't found mention of that in Hakulinen's book either. --Ryan 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept your edit if I cannot convince you, but I do feel that I should explain that I used the word "tenuous", to which you objected, because I have read reports concluding that the Finnic and Ugric languages are not in fact descended from a common ancestor. Therefore, they would have a tenuous connection rather than a distant divergence. Again, as you seem to do lots of editing in this field, I will defer to your final judgment. --M@rēino 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, there are some crackpot theories about a Turkic-Ugric linguistic connection, but these have political motivations. No serious researcher (that is, no fringe theorists) question the relatedness of Finnic and Ugric. The common vocabulary is the strongest argument. --Vuo 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terve, tein vähän isompia lisäyksiä aloittamaasi artikkeliin Proto-Uralic, ja lisäsin puuttuvan artikkelin Proto-Samoyed. Jos sinulla on kommentteja tai ehdotuksia uusiin versioihin, niin kuulen niistä mielelläni. --AAikio 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please respond to GarthBarber's comments in this AfD? Thanks, Crum375 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, no. I'm not a physicist. --Vuo 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very close vote on the WW2 discussion page going on at the moment about the overview of WW2. I would like it if you could vote, as I am very worried that the "narrow" viewpoint will win. Thank you. Wallie 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vuo. What do you think about this idea?

Hi, Vuo... I was at the Finnish language page today, and saw in the first paragraph, "It modifies the forms of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals and verbs depending on their roles in the sentence."

I was thinking of an edit to say something like:

Finnish is an inflected language, in which the forms of words change depending on their roles in a sentence.

I don't speak Finnish, though I dated a Finnish girl in college, and so thought I'd raise the question with you here because of your contributions to the page and your knowledge of the language. The little I know tells me (as a native English speaker) that Finnish definitely is inflected, and maybe deserves some mention on the Inflection page as well. — OtherDave 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm glad that you keep an active eye on the article about Finnish phonology as you seem to have good knowledge about it. However, I have to disagree with you concerning the phonological representation of diphthongs. Please see the new section on the respective talk page. Thanks. --Oghmoir 17:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I really like the way your mergefrom notice is obvious in the article! However, I was under the impression that the Right Thing to do was a WP:TIE

I'm wondering whether there's any way to combine the advantages of a WP:TIE listing and a template note, maybe by just including a category tag in a new template and adding a pointer on TIE to that category.

Until then, just a heads-up that doing both a TIE listing and the note might be more effective for now (and, of course, a request for information on what the best practice is .. I read foreign Wikipedias, though there are few languages I understand well, and I'm a bit distraught at how so much valuable information is only available in a secondary language).

I'm pondering giving Template:Translateandmergefrom a shot ...

RandomP 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more general solution would be a Template:Contentsource to suggest that extremely crucial information is in another content source, and major editing should not be done without consulting the source first. This case is pretty obvious: articles disagree on the very definition. Another similar situation is with the article Economy of Finland. The English original is a revamp of an old CIA factbook entry, missing vital statistics and having a stilted point of view, with a focus so outdate it's essentially worthless. The Finnish article itself has no problems. --Vuo 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more general, sure, but what would be the point of that? It's not like all editors can read all languages, and an article that needs translation is of interest both to editors reading that article (who might happen to read the other language) and to editors who know the language (and might be interested in the articles subject matter).

I agree the Economy section in the Finland article is really bad. Don't read Finnish, alas :-)

RandomP 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can take a cursory glance at an article without knowing the language. In the article fi:Suomen talous, the structure of the economy is described with lists and percentages. The lack of these in the English article is obvious to anyone, even if they knew neither Finnish or English. I can't speak German or French, but I can easily identify that the content is not found in the English article Activity (chemistry). --Vuo 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revisiting one of physics' most embarrassing cases of scientific misconduct, researchers from Russia and the United States announced Monday that they have created a new super-heavy element, atomic number 118. Scientists said they smashed together calcium with the manmade element Californium to make an atom with 118 protons in its nucleus. The new element lasted for just one millisecond, but it was the heaviest element ever made and the first manmade inert gas -- the atomic family that includes helium, neon and radon.

Hello. I see that there's already an article for this, called Ununoctium. Perhaps you would like to update that article with this news article? Or perhaps put it in the In The News section of wikipedia? dposse 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in the news already. --Vuo 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I guess i missed it. dposse 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have contributed to the article related to Education in Finland. I would be interested in your opinion about some issue that I detailed on the mentioned article talk page about a point of your contribution in the Adult education section. I thank you for your attention. Best regards. --nha, from Lyon, France. 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you put [[ERM]]. ERM is a disambig page, and generally, linking to them is discouraged, especially when it clearly refers to something on the list. No big deal. But I just thought it's better to get it right the first time so that people working on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links would have less items to do. Cheers! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a heads up to let you know i've reworded the lead on Consensus decision-making after your edit to include the Polder Model. i made this edit to keep the tone of the lead more 'generalist' and to balance it so that Polder Model didn't get more verbiage than other, equally important, models/groups ie Quakers. Now, in light of your edit, i realize that this article does need to include Polder Model in more detail somewhere in the body. my first reaction is that it should get a sub-section under Consensus_decision-making#Models_of_consensus_decision_making. Looking for opinions! -- frymaster 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus democracy has an overlap with this, although the article itself is a bit thin. --Vuo 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The uses of poisons because of their toxicity is limited."

Do you mean "Some poisons are used because their toxicity is limited."? --DryaUnda 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are different statements. It means that there are very few reasons to use a poison because it's a poison. Many chemicals have a significant toxicity while being useful for some other reason. There are few uses for the toxicity itself. Phosphine, for example, is used to kill pests by poisoning them, therefore you cannot use something that's not poisonous — at least to the pests. (You could also use pyrethrine, which has a low toxicity to humans and high toxicity to insects, but it leaves a residue, which is unacceptable in some applications.) --Vuo 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Shelling of Mainila you recently added that Yeltsin admitted in 1998 that the incident was fabricated by the Soviets. Do you have a reference for this, by any chance? I'm not able to find any sources that back up that claim. I would appreciate if you could help out. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was from another wiki (fi), and the reference is to Yeltsin's denunciation of Stalin's policy of attacking Finland in President Ahtisaari's first state visit to Russia. --Vuo 13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think for verifiability, we will likely need to find something with a good amount of validity. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site refers to President Yeltsin's and President Ahtisaari's press conference 18 May 1994. Yeltsin is quoted: "Annexation of Karelia [into the Soviet Union] was aggression, Stalin's totalitarian policy, and we with President [Ahtisaari] cannot accept this." The importance of this is that as Yeltsin was a successor to Stalin, he could be assumed to support or even continue similar aggressive policies unless he explicitly denounced them. Presidents of Russia have not advocated changing the border, and neither does the Finnish people. --Vuo 10:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the importance. However, without some sort of a primary source attributing specifically the Shelling of Mainila as a Soviet fabricated incident, we probably can't say that Yeltsin said that in the article. -- IlyaHaykinson 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Captitive verb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling the word correctly ""captative verb" improves the search result count significantly. --Vuo 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt and informative citation! That's one of my coolest Wiki experiences yet. Potatoswatter 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Carc.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vuo: As you can see, I reorganized the n-BuLi page a lot. I hope that you are not offended by such a big change, because you have made several valuable edits. Eventually we'll get a real organicker on to this article. If you feel that my changes were too strong, then feel free to revert or re-edit as you think is best - none of us owns this page. Cheers and best wishes for further productive changes. --Smokefoot 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Carc.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should still be considered under-construction. Your advise on the gallery is highly welcome. But, I guess, I will eventually try to have a minimum number of images in the article. Too many images make for a bigger page size, which may be difficult for billions of people out there struggling with a slow internet connection in search of information on the Wikipedia. Besides, images that add only a little value at the expense of cluttering up the article and opening scopes for irrelevant image spamming may be a not-too-desirable situation. I really plan to put back as many images as fit (removal of the gallery is just a beginning of the work), and I am just stating my concerns here. Thankas. It would be very helpful if you could check the article and the images on it tomorrow. Let me know if I am missing something. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that it is under construction. The perpetual under-construction, I think, also includes the image policy or lack of such. My suggestion is to put all images (except one at the intro) into a gallery, the rest being text only. That should limit attempts by different users to "liven up" the article by adding a lot of images along the text. --Vuo (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice pics.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korjasin takaisin "korjauksesi" tekstiini sekä täydensin ja järjestelin lisäystäsi. Vilkaise ja korjaa lisää, ellet ole tyytyväinen. Taneli HUUSKONEN (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to Ä [5] as vandalism [6] since the text I added is correct and common knowledge for many Swedes. Could you please explain your actions? –panda (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was added under "Letter Ä", not Germanic umlaut-A. For the letter Ä, there is no substitution (if forced, "A"). ... And btw, there was this April's Fool connected to this: [7] --Vuo (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was added to the correct location as it has to do with the Swedish ä, not the German ä. The April Fool's joke is about completely removing å, ä, ö from Swedish, not about how it is written when it's not available on a keyboard. Å is written as "aa", ä as "ae", and ö as "oe" when the it's not possible to write "å", "ä", and "ö". I have a letter from the Consulate of Sweden in New York City that was written this way, so it is considered an acceptable way to write Swedish. I personally don't know what the Finns do so the statement made it clear that it was only about Swedish. –panda (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct now.--Vuo (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some back-and-forth editing you might be interested in at the Operation Barbarossa page. I deleted a paragraph you first wrote back in January 2007. Do you have the reference for the paragraph about large numbers of Soviet maps showing Germany and Russian=>German phrasebooks for asking where the German SA is? And a reference for the fact that Soviet maps were scarce in the Soviet Army but German maps were plentiful? You might be able to return the paragraph's clarity. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it I read from the one-source review in Finnish in here, but there is a very short English review in here. After inspecting the reference list of the Finnish article (mostly Suvorov), I personally take it with a grain of salt, althought the basic idea is right: the Communists did want to attack and invade, not just sit tight and wait for Hitler to attack them. There is actually a WP article here: Icebreaker (Suvorov). --Vuo (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for diving back in. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Finn?? I see! Must be a KGB insurgent in Finland no doubt. BTW prove me wrong boy!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk)

Kukaan ei väitä etteikö Stalin olisi ollut vuosisadan roisto, mutta Wikipediassa käytetään tiettyä tietosanakirjatyyliä, jota on noudatettava. Editointi voidaan estää. --Vuo (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This file cannot be deleted because it does not exist here, it exists on Wikimedia Commons, where it may be used by any wikimedia project (other language wikipedia, wikibooks, etc). Please stop adding deletion tags to it. —Random832 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a deletion request to Commons, but I cannot find it again. The image is not NPOV and is linked to only from one personal userpage in a gallery of "images I uploaded", in addition to being in a thumbnail image on the userpage of a fled user. --Vuo (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in use on several other projects (see [8]) - also, a translated version is on the Czech wikipedia article on Swedish. I don't see the NPOV problem, can you explain it further? I also can't see your deletion request on commons, though if you would like help going through this process I'd be willing to help make sure you get it listed. —Random832 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request is here [9]. Discussion is found in Talk:Finland-Swedish. Basically, it's a hand-drawn map without subnational boundaries indicated, rather than a municipality-by-municipality colored map like its replacement. I assume it has been retained out of ignorance while the new map has been available. --Vuo (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:TKK-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vuo, I appreciate your comments at Snipe Hunt, but its a very black-and-white issue - source the items or do not reinclude them. The one source was in Finnish, and did not appear to comply with WP:RS. This is a purely policy matter, not a content dispute. As such, I will be inclined to protect the page if unsourced trivia is readded despite the multiple requests and tags for the article to be brought in line with policy. I know you're a dedicated editor, would be awesome if you found some sources for the material. Thanks, Deiz talk 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:EuropeArticleLanguages2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help. There is also this sentence "Asukkaista 84,5% oli ruotsinkielisiä ja 15,4% suomenkielisiä vuonna 1970 ja kunta oli kaksikielinen." What does it mean, please? TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been translated, thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand your reason for reverting the edits I made to Swedish as a foreign language. Besides reverting grammatical errors, you've also re-added a bunch of POV that is only a personal opinion about the Swedish language. The text you added appears to come from someone who has had a very negative introduction to the Swedish language, and also included errors about the grammar. If you can back up the text with citations, then feel free to do so. But re-adding it by only commenting "reverted Panda's edits; he's been complained about before" [10] is not a valid reason for any revert. –panda (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're a Swedish speaker. It is very difficult for a native speaker to assess which parts of one's native language are difficult to foreign learners. For example, native English speakers make different spelling errors compared to nonnatives. Nevertheless, the main problem I'm facing with listing problems specific to Swedish is the lack of references. I'm bringing the text to talk page. --Vuo (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Family name#Finland, you wrote:

In the Finnish language, the root of the surname can be modified when inflected to a case. For example, the very common -nen is modified into -se- in oblique forms, e.g. Nieminen to Niemiselle "to Nieminen". In contrast, first names are not modified (e.g. Hilta - Hiltan).

Can you specify? In my opinion, even the first name is modified in inflection: Mikko -> Mikon, Klaus -> Klaun. The particular -nen -> -se inflection does not take place, but that is only because Finnish first names do not end with -nen, not because of any grammatical reason. --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Organic elements, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks a lot for commenting. Just to be absolutely clear, and avoid anybody misinterpreting your remarks, could you say if you prefer version 1 or 2 of the lead? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just a note to alert you to the fact that one of the editors of this article is now edit-warring to remove the sourced criticism that was agreed to in this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... i do not like your "spelling/style corrections". And it is my right to dislike it... I will not undo it because i am less stubborn than you are. Have a nice day and please contribute to this article with some original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you had participated in the discussion earlier, I thought you should know that there is now a Request for Comments on whether the TV show Brainiac: Science Abuse counts as science, pseudoscience, or something in-between. If you have further comments on the subjct your input here would be appreciated. -- HiEv 20:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read the Finalnd article discussion area and noticed that the user Turkuun has also caused some problems in Finland article with his radical edits. We have a similar situation with the Estonia article where he is trying to restructure and rewrite the existing and approved article chapters and headings. I was wondering if you could provide some help or advice in dealing with such contributor as Turkuun is? Karabinier 00:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Warning sign. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you add some sources to your last addition to the affair article? Since the media coverage is good, there shouldn't be a problem to find any. Thanks. --Tone 19:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions :) --Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all your edits; but your claim that a vänrikki, who has only 12 months of military service, is assigned as commander of a battery or company upon mobilization seems very unlikely. Please verify this. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An officer in reserve can be posted as a battery commander, and their first rank is vänrikki. There are cases from the Second World War. --Vuo (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)ä[reply]

Again, thank you for your most valuable contributions to Finnish ranks :) To answer your reply: You refer to WW2, but it would be nice to know what position a reserve vänrikki may fill today upon mobilization? A vänrikki may be promoted to luuttnantti, yliluutnantti, luutnantti up to kapteeni and gradually reach positions such as deputy company commander up to company commander. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chloramine-T-2.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Chloramine-T.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Chloramine-T.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking that you might want to qualify this statement.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gopal81^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello. could you provide a source for your statement on the Talk:Fluoride poisoning talk page that "the toxicity of organofluorines is entirely compound-dependent and not related to fluoride release." (italics added)? I am not sure that your assertion is correct, due to methoxyflurane page, (and fuzzy memories), but I would like to learn more in case you are right. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: when placing warning/information templates on user talk pages, always remember to subst the template. See WP:TM/UTN for more info. Thanks! haz (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vuo. You started article about Teboil last summer. Therefore, I would like to ask your comment about some issues listed at the talk page of this article. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Werner Wanker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. If it were not for the name, would this be here?

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was quite correct - the reference used (here) states "sulphur dioxide", not "suphur monoxide". I've updated the article accordingly (and removed your tag). Thanks for noticing this.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Condescension, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not worth an encyclopedia article, transwiki to Wiktionary and revert this to the redirect it was previously

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. PamD (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your first clarification ("at the level of the individual") but I don't understand why you thought to add "during their lifetimes" to the sentence "For example, smoking tobacco is known to cause cancer in humans, but not all people who smoke necessarily develop smoking-related cancer during their lifetimes." -- as opposed to what, after their lifetimes? :)

Also, I'm not sure what to do about it but the sentence in the article "of which men are more likely to smoke than women, however the gender gap declines with age, poor more likely than rich, and people of developing countries than those of developed countries". I don't think it sounds very grammatical the way it reads now... do you have a better suggestion?

79.122.9.209 (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lifetime of a tobacco smoker is shorter than that of a non-smoker. All of this difference is not because of excess incidence of cancer. That's why it's important to add the qualifier "during their lifetimes". --Vuo (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your explanation sounds like you're now saying: "not all people who smoke necessarily develop smoking-related cancer during their lifetimes (which, however, are shorter than non-smokers for reasons other than cancer incidence)"... is this right? If that's what you mean, I'm afraid I still don't quite understand your point... 94.27.216.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't have the epidemiological data here, but as I remember it, most people who die from tobacco smoking don't die from cancer. We don't want to give the idea that tobacco smoking is safe EXCEPT for cancer, because that is simply not true. Rather, cancer kills only those that are alive after being exposed to other risks such as excess physiological stress that causes cardiovascular disease. Normal people (non-smokers) are not exposed to the same amount of cardiovascular disease-causing physiological stress as smokers, and live longer. --Vuo (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you be interested in helping to establish a WikiProject covering all aspects of tobacco? If so, please sign up here - cheers! bd2412 T 06:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is being conducted at Talk:Health effects of tobacco, I thought you might be interested. 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my sloppy edit to peroxide and figuring out that we probably needed to guide readers to H₂O₂.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vuo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 16 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jari Sarasvuo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can you provide references for the KemFine article? Regards, PDCook (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PDCook (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

in your edit to Finnish military ranks, you say that Finnish reserve officers are non-commissioned. Could you please discuss this at the talk page of the article? --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm interested by your edit. You say: "The rank of most senior chaplain, Chaplain General, is also considered to be a general officer rank."
The most senior chaplains in many countries are indeed considered to be, in some sense or other, of "general officer rank". However, they are not often called "Chaplain General".
Can you expand upon your statement, and also, can you provide a supporting reference? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vuo. There is a discussion to merge Green diesel article with Vegetable oil refining and/or Biomass to liquid articles. As one of the main editors of the Vegetable oil refining article, your input is highly appreciated. Beagel (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your awe-inspiring work on articles such as Finnish name and Spoken Finnish. --hydrox (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jostain kumman syystä käyttäjäsivusi User:Vuo näkyi uudelleenohjaussivuna artikkeliin Kajaani kun katsoi kyseisen kaupungin "What links here" -erikoissivua. Muokkasin käyttäjäsivuasi niin, että poistin sieltä kaiken muun paitsi #redirect-määreen. Tämä näyttää korjanneen asian. JIP | Talk 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Taxation in Finland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Economy of Finland. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Economy of Finland - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JDDJS (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vuo has contributed to the English Wikipedia since November 2004. I think he knows the process and guidelines by now. Please refer to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. JIP | Talk 19:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw the redlink "Taxation in Finland" in an article (see What links here), and just wrote something off the top of my head to start the article. Well, the funny thing is, that it was in fact me who wrote a corresponding - and slightly longer - text into another article. --vuo (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxation in Finland until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confused. I nominated the page through AFD. Discuss it on the discusion page for the deletion. don't put a hang on. JDDJS (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elisabeth Nauclér has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like that addition.

I am going to request a photo of the actual plant that makes fluoroacetate (poison leaf is most common) and then change that out for the fluoroacetate molecule. (leave yours as the more interesting structure).

And sorry if I come across as aggressive on the talk pages. No one here to punch me in the nose, since it's the Internet.  ;)

TCO (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea since you could in principle fill any article about an element with chemical structures. The fluoroacetate could be in the precautions section. --vuo (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Destia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vuo. Your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Expressive loan would be most welcome. I am unable to read the Finnish source cited on the page, and am enlisting help to improve the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vuo, your edits about Women's rights and in precise about the Women's rights in Finland. They were excellent. Happy editing. Watti Renew (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]